Re: [Geojson] Requests for comments on GeoJSON Events draft
Norman Barker <norman.barker@gmail.com> Tue, 10 January 2017 17:31 UTC
Return-Path: <norman.barker@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: geojson@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: geojson@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78F581294E3 for <geojson@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:31:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZQzl6ylwCPRz for <geojson@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:31:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22f.google.com (mail-lf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFC05129541 for <geojson@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:31:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id k86so120359869lfi.0 for <geojson@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:31:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/+hfFRNN6SooGk+hLgMMxXV/8eW5bzTOb78LJan6CFM=; b=eCYkmZ2HPBYGmJ/uQff3v8gQirj+aHacxWVWv5B2quHDeLrVwDrN8jlw5mJFn+LP5l M0n06GUF7LbtVZozhANjAL3Wjft8VzaEgTx7MGc1lQ1yAyqHCnLCNrht/6bB/FIUmuDZ iwfetSq2go4u1zEYBWcFSVNrXr8L/0eHGQ0dOxsnrn342/wz851f5NK+EYGRjKzvSqXF qkOheQLWqIPHM7pBM3um5PadlT0j4qw7L1MZJxv3B0mnlDyD53GX8g0nRCn1ElP/HcXW PPKEERzEPhmmSB1JHRpckZCsN2dpNiH8cGU3AnSUJvywQ2IpqO+Ko0ObpWMgnV7O9PDv 5Grg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/+hfFRNN6SooGk+hLgMMxXV/8eW5bzTOb78LJan6CFM=; b=Honsfps3gqkEilOKJGPJugLu61GtwrzXos+3LrEcAmiED2PLPZIlBrQlwaR4GsXgmf CdgdnF/7miCCl7GpPs4jKF7Xzrpm/n3ANv7rUY6QEwASgZHvx7WmIOUIHl468vel+gdK czSLKTtL6R+jnLU/VaxxTE+BXZMpMmXVEKgET03Cz8S87ZEBH1HKnO+IijThXrlm2UUe knYWSXXuFVZEsY/RUHB/011BCEYFCH+2eTbmRkNnm6Fepbx1c45TewYdR9CIvY94F+2m 53tPYbF9KyXynJ011R8wuPhxgSPE6cOcpo+a+FqUmDRX/3s7ToYJNavCARWDGBzwxFW+ ny/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLSeVMT+ovKCGLWeGqm2l6x3uen9XCnBv/RBqGg8eQMxYBhi5Y79LUqzoPDOrnt7y9w7PDcuVa8faKhcA==
X-Received: by 10.25.145.93 with SMTP id y29mr1348380lfj.49.1484069474849; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:31:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.75.73 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:31:14 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAOodmJqy=iGcsfTmL7ZRiV_yEThWOEEO=PMH7Fg=+hTC51+3YA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOodmJomw-0VymQYyPHLCR+Ds+dpEmFe=2j+FnZGh19bf1DUbg@mail.gmail.com> <5c9ebf53b24d4fce8c9fe3903b3e6177@SRV016VEX.cadcorp.net> <CAOodmJqAJsw8wR_WrKaWHWWb73ngD=u8Q6-zER_8L6rTWL-FCg@mail.gmail.com> <022c2c55-b456-fa7f-1999-00508366fb96@tu-dresden.de> <CAOodmJqy=iGcsfTmL7ZRiV_yEThWOEEO=PMH7Fg=+hTC51+3YA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Norman Barker <norman.barker@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:31:14 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN_Dn-F8ufqoOcxfjvt0DFyvvV2eAVptk9h7zfq3OHZh71ymng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sean Gillies <sean.gillies@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1cd066ded8640545c0d908"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/geojson/sY5Ct0fwgiiZau2xFwseMvlWsig>
Cc: geojson@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Geojson] Requests for comments on GeoJSON Events draft
X-BeenThere: geojson@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF GeoJSON WG <geojson.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/geojson>, <mailto:geojson-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/geojson/>
List-Post: <mailto:geojson@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:geojson-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geojson>, <mailto:geojson-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:31:19 -0000
Hi Sean, is met data in scope for this draft? Frequently weather forecast data includes a model creation time in addition to the forecast event time instant/interval. Whilst I could see the model creation time be included in the generic properties, it is useful to know if the event is a forecast or historic. I am a bit late to the review, sorry if this has already been discussed. Norman On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:05 AM, Sean Gillies <sean.gillies@gmail.com> wrote: > Indeed, Matthias, thanks for pointing out this issue with RFC 3339. Being > able to use a date (no time) is important for some applications. I'll > remove the normative reference to RFC 3339. > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Matthias Müller < > Matthias_Mueller@tu-dresden.de> wrote: > >> Hi Sean, >> >> the interval definition looks perfect to me. >> >> To verify the time string question, I took a re-read of RFC 3339 and >> stumbled over this passage in section 5: >> >> "The following section defines a profile of ISO 8601 for use on the >> Internet. It is a conformant subset of the ISO 8601 extended format. >> Simplicity is achieved by making most fields and punctuation >> mandatory." >> >> The BNF is this: >> >> full-date = date-fullyear "-" date-month "-" date-mday >> partial-time = time-hour ":" time-minute ":" time-second >> [time-secfrac] >> full-time = partial-time time-offset >> date-time = full-date "T" full-time >> >> >> My reading of this is that RFC 3339 demands the date-time representation >> for all timestamps (all the examples in the RFC seem to support this view). >> This requires at least 1-second precision and make the use of time second >> fractions optional. >> This is reasonable for the purpose of RFC 3339 but may conflict with your >> intentions for GeoJSON Events. >> >> >> Matthias >> >> >> On 07.01.2017 13:52, Sean Gillies wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Thanks for the feedback. I've made sure that the draft uses start/end >>> (following the Activity Streams 2.0 spec and suggestions here) and >>> explains that the values are on the boundary of intervals. Version -01 >>> of the draft is now at >>> https://sgillies.github.io/geojson-events/draft-gillies-geoj >>> son-events.html. >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Martin Daly <Martin.Daly@cadcorp.com >>> <mailto:Martin.Daly@cadcorp.com>> wrote: >>> >>> You know me: I think that the “when” object belongs **inside** the >>> “properties” object.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> If everyone did it like that then the implementations would >>> (eventually, if they don’t already) support structure within the >>> “properties” object, which, I think, is more interoperable than N >>> new objects alongside “properties”.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> And, purely subjectively, I’d stick with start/end.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Martin____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> *From:*GeoJSON [mailto:geojson-bounces@ietf.org >>> <mailto:geojson-bounces@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of *Sean Gillies >>> *Sent:* 04 January 2017 09:33 >>> *To:* geojson@ietf.org <mailto:geojson@ietf.org> >>> *Subject:* [Geojson] Requests for comments on GeoJSON Events >>> draft____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Hi and Bonne Année all, >>> >>> With help from many of you, I've been working on a GeoJSON extension >>> for event-like features >>> >>> https://github.com/sgillies/geojson-events >>> <https://github.com/sgillies/geojson-events>____ >>> >>> and have drafted a spec:____ >>> >>> >>> >>> https://sgillies.github.io/geojson-events/draft-gillies-geoj >>> son-events.html >>> <https://sgillies.github.io/geojson-events/draft-gillies-geo >>> json-events.html> >>> https://sgillies.github.io/geojson-events/ >>> <https://sgillies.github.io/geojson-events/>____ >>> >>> It's pared down dramatically from what we discussed in the past. >>> Fuzzy time periods are out and so are temporal bounding boxes >>> because the use cases for these are rare. GeoJSON has been doing >>> well so far without any representation of fuzzy geometry and I think >>> the situation is about the same for time.____ >>> >>> I received an suggestion to consider ISO 8601 style time intervals. >>> This would allow a single string value to represent an instant or >>> interval,____ >>> >>> "when": "2017-01-04/2017-01-05"____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> instead of ____ >>> >>> "when": {"start": "2017-01-04", "stop": "2017-01-05"}____ >>> >>> but this seems harder to use because support for it in parsers is >>> rare.____ >>> >>> I was asked about recurring intervals like "every other Friday," but >>> I think this isn't necessary. GeoJSON doesn't have a concept of >>> non-literal geometries either.____ >>> >>> Some time ago we arrived at rough consensus that "moving objects" >>> and "event-like features" are either different things or very >>> different models of the same things. Moving objects are not >>> specified in my draft.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> I have two objectives for this draft:____ >>> >>> * To establish a common representation for time in GeoJSON that >>> mappers of events, whether they are scientists or journalists or >>> historians, can share.____ >>> >>> * To set an example for other extension projects.____ >>> >>> I'd love comments on how it can be improved to better meet those >>> objectives. Thanks! >>> >>> -- ____ >>> >>> Sean Gillies____ >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sean Gillies >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GeoJSON mailing list >>> GeoJSON@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geojson >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> GeoJSON mailing list >> GeoJSON@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geojson >> > > > > -- > Sean Gillies > > _______________________________________________ > GeoJSON mailing list > GeoJSON@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geojson > >
- [Geojson] Requests for comments on GeoJSON Events… Sean Gillies
- Re: [Geojson] Requests for comments on GeoJSON Ev… Matthias Müller
- Re: [Geojson] Requests for comments on GeoJSON Ev… Erik Wilde
- Re: [Geojson] Requests for comments on GeoJSON Ev… Carl Reed
- [Geojson] Fwd: Requests for comments on GeoJSON E… Sean Gillies
- Re: [Geojson] Requests for comments on GeoJSON Ev… Sean Gillies
- Re: [Geojson] Requests for comments on GeoJSON Ev… Erik Wilde
- Re: [Geojson] Requests for comments on GeoJSON Ev… Martin Daly
- Re: [Geojson] Requests for comments on GeoJSON Ev… Sean Gillies
- Re: [Geojson] Requests for comments on GeoJSON Ev… Matthias Müller
- Re: [Geojson] Requests for comments on GeoJSON Ev… Karl Grossner
- Re: [Geojson] Requests for comments on GeoJSON Ev… Simon.Cox
- Re: [Geojson] Requests for comments on GeoJSON Ev… Sean Gillies
- Re: [Geojson] Requests for comments on GeoJSON Ev… Norman Barker
- Re: [Geojson] Requests for comments on GeoJSON Ev… Carl Reed
- Re: [Geojson] Requests for comments on GeoJSON Ev… Simon.Cox
- [Geojson] Was: Requests for comments on GeoJSON E… Little, Chris